Opinion
Civil Action No. 2: 20-cv-0775
11-03-2020
JORDAN JAMES JOHNSON Petitioner, v. WARDEN, WESTMORELAND COUNTY PRISON; and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF WESTMORELAND COUNTY, Respondents.
United States District Judge Arthur J. Schwab
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
Presently before the Court is a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by Jordan James Johnson ("Petitioner"), a state pretrial detainee being detained at the Westmoreland County Prison. (ECF No. 4). For the following reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the petition be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies and that, to the extent one is needed, a certificate of appealability be denied.
II. REPORT
Petitioner is currently in custody at the Westmoreland County Prison awaiting trial by jury on three counts of Aggravated Assault, two counts of Possession of a Firearm Prohibited; one count of Firearms not be Carried Without a license, and related misdemeanor charges that were filed at case number CP-65-CR-0001201-2020. Trial is scheduled before the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County on December 7, 2020. Petitioner alleges "constitutional violation of right to bail" and "constitutional violation of petitioner's right to due process moving forward petitioner is basically forced to wait Covid-19 out."
Petitioner's first claim is moot as bond was set at $20,000.00 straight on July 23, 2020. However, as of the time of the issuance of this report and recommendation, the Records Officer at Westmoreland County Prison advises that Petitioner remains in custody because he has not posted bail. Petitioner's second claim is also moot as Westmoreland County Court is fully operational and Petitioner has an upcoming trial date.
Even more importantly though, a petitioner must exhaust state remedies by presenting his federal constitutional claims to each level of the state courts empowered to hear those claims, either on direct appeal or in collateral post-conviction proceedings. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999). In Pennsylvania, this requirement generally means that a petitioner in a non-capital case must have presented every federal constitutional claim raised in his habeas petition to the Common Pleas Court and then to the Superior Court either on direct or PCRA appeal. See, e.g., Lambert, 387 F.3d at 233-34. Once a petitioner's federal claims have been fairly presented to the state courts and those proceedings conclude, the exhaustion requirement is satisfied.
The exhaustion requirement is "grounded in principles of comity; in a federal system, the States should have the first opportunity to address and correct alleged violations of state prisoner's federal rights." Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991). Federal court intervention would be premature whenever a state procedure still affords a petitioner with an opportunity to obtain relief from the judgment of sentence that he seeks to attack in a federal habeas proceeding. See, e.g., Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 513 (3d Cir. 1998) ("The exhaustion requirement does not foreclose federal relief, but merely postpones it."). The general rule is that a district court should dismiss a federal habeas petition if the petitioner is exhausting his available state remedies. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982).
Respondents argue that the instant federal petition should be dismissed because Petitioner has failed to exhaust his state court remedies this petition. (ECF No. 10). The Court agrees with Respondents and therefore, recommends that the instant federal habeas petition be dismissed. The dismissal should be without prejudice to Petitioner commencing another federal habeas case in the event that he does not receive the relief he seeks upon the completion of any relevant litigation before the state courts. To the extent one is needed, a Certificate of Appealability should be denied as jurists of reason would not find the foregoing debatable.
III. CONCLUSION
For all of the above reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner commencing another federal habeas case in the event that he does not receive the relief he seeks upon the completion of any relevant litigation before the state courts. To the extent one is needed, a Certificate of Appealability should be denied as jurists of reason would not find the foregoing debatable.
Any party is permitted to file Objections to this Report and Recommendation to the assigned United States District Judge. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) and 72(b)(2), and LCvR 72.D.2, Petitioner, because he is a non-electronically registered party, must file objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation by November 20, 2020, and Respondents, because they are electronically registered parties, must file objections, if any, by November 17, 2020. The parties are cautioned that failure to file Objections within this timeframe "will waive the right to appeal." Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011).
s/ Cynthia Reed Eddy
Cynthia Reed Eddy
Chief United States Magistrate Judge Dated: November 3, 2020 cc: JORDAN JAMES JOHNSON
485-2020
Westmoreland County Prison
3000 S. Grande Blvd.
Greensburg, PA 15601
(via U.S. First Class Mail)
Jacquelyn A. Knupp
Westmoreland County District Attorney's Office
(via ECF electronic notification)